He got "Busted!"...Info on what to expect?

[lisamariewillbe 1]

Quote

Hey wanna but an 8-ball? Maybe! You're busted.

Saying maybe wouldnt get you in trouble, showing up to BUY the 8 ball could.

You are not comparing apples to apples... leave the oranges out

Sudsy Fist: i don't think i'd ever say this
Sudsy Fist: but you're looking damn sudsydoable in this

[popsjumper 2]

The oranges were taken out...

"Take the emotionally-charged kid stuff out of it"

Responding "maybe" can be and has been construed as complicity and conspiracy.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[miked10270 0]

Quote

I agree... I just don't like the idea of cops enticing and then busting.

Ever talk to anybody about doing something illegal? Yeah. Busted.

I'm guessing that the normal rules of an undercover sting will be closely scrutinised at any subsequent trial...

I.E; The cop plays an entirely passive role and does not suggest or instigate anything. Also, the perpetrator does in fact carry out some physical action which is criminal.

From that, simply chatting INNOCENTLY to someone then arranging to meet would surely not be criminal. However, if the chat was, say, sexually oriented, then that could be a different matter.

Mike.

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

[lisamariewillbe 1]

If you MAYBE talk to a kid about having sex, and arrange to meet to MAYBE have sex, and your whole online relationship is surronded by MAYBE having a sexual relationship then MAYBE is thrown out the window when that MAYBE turns into a DEFINATE when they show up to the meet.

Sudsy Fist: i don't think i'd ever say this
Sudsy Fist: but you're looking damn sudsydoable in this

[gemini 0]

No where near the same thing:

Quote

Hey wanna but an 8-ball?

You say yes AND give the cop money. You are busted!

Quote

Speed limit 55. 10ft later, 35mph.

You are a licensed driver and know the rules. Speed limits go up and down in many places sometimes dramatically. Point of infraction is the placement location of the sign and beyond the sign. Once you see the sign, immediately start slowing down. If you can't see the sign you shouldn't be driving or if the sign is hidden behind something, you can fight it. Still you violating the law.

Quote

Ever talk to anybody about doing something illegal?

You mean like soliciting for the murder of a spouse or business partner? Still you talking to somebody about you doing something illegal.

What's the difference between these 3 examples and our sexual predator?

1) He was told the person he was talking to was a minor and he still continued talking and arranged a meeting knowing he was not also a minor.

2) The target minor he was after is not capable of protecting herself from sexual predators; hence the law.

3) The crime he was going to commit was injury to another person not to himself.

I suggest you PM skycop (Post #48) and hear what some of these guys are capable of. Most of the discussions here talk about an adult 22-21 and a 17, 16, 15 year old which in some countries may not be illegal.

How about a 40 year old after your 12 year old daughter? Or your 10 year old niece? Both of them could have been on-line chatting with their "friends".

Blue skies,

Jim

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

....I.E; The cop plays an entirely passive role and does not suggest or instigate anything. Also, the perpetrator does in fact carry out some physical action which is criminal.

From that, simply chatting INNOCENTLY to someone then arranging to meet would surely not be criminal. .

AFAIK, conspiracy/complicity charges do not include a requirement to actually carry out some physical action (lawyers, please correct me if I'm wrong here.) unless attending the meeting is considered the physical action....then it's up to the jury to decide the innocence of your side of the conversation.

But. back on topic....the guy is screwed....I can't imagine a jury letting him off in this country. You know how much respect cons have for kiddie abusers, too.

Don't get me wrong...kid stuff is way out-of-bounds and perps get what they deserve.
My uncomfort comes from the apparent "entrapment" and supposedly police entrapment was ruled as a no-no a long time ago by the Supreme Court.

But then, on the other hand....what other methods could be used to nail these sickos before damage is done.?

Oh...btw, as a side note...the Tom Cruise movie about the cops of the future busting people for crimes of the future made me ill thinking about the possibility of it coming true.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[mr2mk1g 10]

From earlier posts in the thread, he appears to have been charged with soliciting sex with a minor. I'm guessing that the crime would thus be complete when he asks the minor for sex. It requires no contact between him and the minor, only that he does the soliciting. Thus under the circumstances the physical act part of the crime is asking certain things of someone they believe to be a minor.

Him turning up at the meeting point is merely a nice way of delivering him into police custody - the crime itself would have already been committed days ago.

This is all based on a couple of presumptions however of what this guys been charged with and also notably that those charges broadly mirror those found in my jurisdiction.

[waltappel 1]

Quote

From earlier posts in the thread, he appears to have been charged with soliciting sex with a minor. I'm guessing that the crime would thus be complete when he asks the minor for sex. It requires no contact between him and the minor, only that he does the soliciting. Thus under the circumstances the physical act part of the crime is asking certain things of someone they believe to be a minor.

Him turning up at the meeting point is merely a nice way of delivering him into police custody - the crime itself would have already been committed days ago.

This is all based on a couple of presumptions however of what this guys been charged with and also notably that those charges broadly mirror those found in my jurisdiction.

But in the case of the "minor" being a cop, he did not actually solicit sex from a minor. He obviously thought he was. Apparently he had the intent to have sex with a minor, but it makes me uneasy that the government is acting as the "thought police".

I cannot deny that the government's goal, i.e., taking child sexual predators off the street, is a very worthwhile thing. I also cannot deny that any person who gets caught in this type of sting has shown behavior consistent with being a child sexual predator. It makes me uneasy, though, when the government says, in effect, "We're going to throw this guy in prison because given the opportunity, he would really love to have sex with a minor."

Again, I've never been around sexual predators nor do I have any attachment to children, so it's not an emotional topic for me.

Walt

[lisamariewillbe 1]

Quote

"We're going to throw this guy in prison because given the opportunity, he would really love to have sex with a minor."

Its not that he would just LOVE to have sex with a child, it is that he is seeking a child and is taking steps to through the internet, get children to MEET HIM IN PERSON for sexual acts.

Quote

Again, I've never been around sexual predators nor do I have any attachment to children, so it's not an emotional topic for me.

Id not think that one would have to have a attachment to children to see how wrong the thought of adults with children are. Human compassion and understanding is not something we should have to learn and it should not only be extended to things that directly effect us. A person should not have to be a parent to know the wrong in a adult praying upon minors.

Sudsy Fist: i don't think i'd ever say this
Sudsy Fist: but you're looking damn sudsydoable in this

[mr2mk1g 10]

Well I can only really speak authoritatively from UK standpoint, but I’ll give my views.

Over here for certain offences we wouldn’t mind that he hasn’t actually committed a crime so long as he thought he was committing a crime but this approach only extends to certain very limited crimes - usually only inchoate offences such as conspiracy, attempt etc.

The leading case is that of R. v. Shivpury. Here S. thought he was importing dope from Amsterdam and when stopped by customs and asked if he was carrying stupidly admitted to it and gave them the drugs. Turns out he’d actually been screwed by the dealer in Amsterdam and all he really had was snuff. He did honestly think it was dope though.

Unfortunately for S. as he had honestly believed he had imported drugs we know that S, given the right opportunity would be a drug smuggler. His actions have already proved that he is willing to do this. But this is not what he is found guilty of – as you say that is penalizing thought.

Thus he was actually guilty of attempting to import a controlled substance. The fact that it was really impossible to do so (given that he only had snuff) does not detract from the illegality of his actions in attempting to do so.

Here then I suppose it may well be that what he has actually been charged with is attempting to solicit sex with a minor. The physical act of this is soliciting sex with someone who he believes to be a minor. The fact that the person isn’t actually a minor doesn’t stop him being guilty of the attempt to do so – as for all he knew he was doing so.

As I said though – this is a guess based on UK law… it may simply be that you can be guilty of soliciting sex from a minor in the US despite impossibility issues.

[waltappel 1]

Quote

Id not think that one would have to have a attachment to children to see how wrong the thought of adults with children are. Human compassion and understanding is not something we should have to learn and it should not only be extended to things that directly effect us. A person should not have to be a parent to know the wrong in a adult praying upon minors.

I absolutely think any adult who seeks to have sex with children is really twisted.

The reason I mentioned my lack of emotional attachment to children and lack of experience with sexual predators is because it makes this whole discussion a purely hypothetical discussion for me and I think it's important to state that because I may well not be qualified to have an informed opinion on the topic.

I do think that on many topics, this NOT being one of them, many people with kids seem to unreasonably think the world owes them some sort of special consideration and act as if others should change their behaviors and lifestyles just to make their child-rearing easier. I don't buy into that even a little bit.

Walt

[tso-d_chris 0]

Quote

From earlier posts in the thread, he appears to have been charged with soliciting sex with a minor. I'm guessing that the crime would thus be complete when he asks the minor for sex. It requires no contact between him and the minor, only that he does the soliciting. Thus under the circumstances the physical act part of the crime is asking certain things of someone they believe to be a minor

I am interested in knowing if police officers( in the applicable area of jurisdiction) over age 21 can "pose" as minors for a sting to catch those that would sell alcohol to minors.

When my job required selling alcohol, this type of sting would have been (and was for one clerk) very easy to beat, based exclusively on the actions of the police.

[billvon 3,111]

>then MAYBE is thrown out the window when that MAYBE turns into a
>DEFINATE when they show up to the meet.

No. Then they are guilty of meeting a 13-year-old. They may have the INTENT to have sex with them, but it is still a maybe.

The previous comparison was a good one. You see someone who you think is a drug dealer. You walk up to them. "Hey, are you a drug dealer?" "Yes." Busted! You showed up to meet them.

[lisamariewillbe 1]

Quote

I am interested in knowing if police officers( in the applicable area of jurisdiction) over age 21 can "pose" as minors for a sting to catch those that would sell alcohol to minors.

They usually get actual minors to do it in some places

Sudsy Fist: i don't think i'd ever say this
Sudsy Fist: but you're looking damn sudsydoable in this

[kallend 2,147]

Quote

Quote

Just because someone says they're 16 or 13 or whatever doesn't mean anyone with even half a brain actually believes that.

Are you saying that those that fall for it shouldn't be incarcerated because they are stupid?

Do you believe everything you read on the internet? Do you believe everyone registered on DZ.COM is actually who they say they are?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lisamariewillbe 1]

Quote

No. Then they are guilty of meeting a 13-year-old. They may have the INTENT to have sex with them, but it is still a maybe.

But your leaving out how the conversation with this minor has been "ohhh what were gonna do when we meet" sexual acts are pre-planned, "I love making little girls feel special" and all the other sick twisted things that are expressed to this 13 year old.

Quote

The previous comparison was a good one. You see someone who you think is a drug dealer. You walk up to them. "Hey, are you a drug dealer?" "Yes." Busted! You showed up to meet them.

That would not make them BUSTED but if they then asked to BUY said drugs then yes there BUSTED. If they say online I want to buy those drugs, show up to buy those drugs and its a cop selling those drugs then yes there busted , so no it wasnt a good comparison IMO

Sudsy Fist: i don't think i'd ever say this
Sudsy Fist: but you're looking damn sudsydoable in this

[billvon 3,111]

>That would not make them BUSTED but if they then asked to BUY
>said drugs then yes there BUSTED.

And if the man in question met the 13 year old and said (either on line or in person) that he wanted to have sex with her, then I would agree that the two cases are similar. He expressed intent and then began to act on it by showing up.

[lisamariewillbe 1]

Quote

And if the man in question met the 13 year old and said (either on line or in person) that he wanted to have sex with her, then I would agree that the two cases are similar. He expressed intent and then began to act on it by showing up.

That was my point, expressed intent. Thanks for the wording. And from what I understand , the online chats get extremely graphic to help the case of intent

Sudsy Fist: i don't think i'd ever say this
Sudsy Fist: but you're looking damn sudsydoable in this

[tso-d_chris 0]

Quote

They usually get actual minors to do it in some places

That is what happened with the clerk I mentioned. He proceeded to make a citizen's arrest of the minor, for misrepresentation of age with intent to purchase alcohol. The clerk was legally justified in this action, based on local law.

It turned into a catch 22 for the police, and the charges against both parties were dismissed.

[lisamariewillbe 1]

I hope the store clerk was recognized for his duty.

Sudsy Fist: i don't think i'd ever say this
Sudsy Fist: but you're looking damn sudsydoable in this

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Just because someone says they're 16 or 13 or whatever doesn't mean anyone with even half a brain actually believes that.

Are you saying that those that fall for it shouldn't be incarcerated because they are stupid?

Do you believe everything you read on the internet? Do you believe everyone registered on DZ.COM is actually who they say they are?

Of course not. What does that have to do with my question?

Do you think the perverts should be let off because they are dumb and fell for a sting?

Or is it worse you implying that the kids deserve what they get because they are naive?

I don't believe either.

Maybe you are just commenting as an aside that the perverts and/or the kids are just stupid.......

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[kallend 2,147]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Just because someone says they're 16 or 13 or whatever doesn't mean anyone with even half a brain actually believes that.

Are you saying that those that fall for it shouldn't be incarcerated because they are stupid?

Do you believe everything you read on the internet? Do you believe everyone registered on DZ.COM is actually who they say they are?

Of course not. What does that have to do with my question?

Do you think the perverts should be let off because they are dumb and fell for a sting?

Or is it worse you implying that the kids deserve what they get because they are naive?

I don't believe either.

Maybe you are just commenting as an aside that the perverts and/or the kids are just stupid.......

Whether or not he "fell" for the Sting depends on whether or not he believed the identity and age of the individual who was leading him on.

I sure wouldn't believe anything from a chat room. I don't even believe you are who you say you are.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[gemini 0]

Quote

I don't even believe you are who you say you are.

But some of us know who the other really is!

Blue skies,

Jim

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I sure wouldn't believe anything from a chat room. I don't even believe you are who you say you are.

OK John - I'll try again. You said:

Quote

Given the large number of people posing as someone they are not on internet sites and chat rooms, I fail to see how operations like this can be used as evidence of a felony.

Just because someone says they're 16 or 13 or whatever doesn't mean anyone with even half a brain actually believes that.

The point in red is what I'm asking you about. Just because the pervert is stupid, why is that a good reason to throw out the evidence?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[tso-d_chris 0]

Sorry, I got away from my original point.

If police are not allowed to impersonate minors for underage liquor store sales, why should they be able to impersonate a minor in this situation?

While I find the alleged crime apalling, like others, I do not feel that the rights of the accused should be infringed so that others can feel safer.

If parents feel internet access is so dangerous to their children, it is the parents' responsibility to supervise their kids while they are online, IMO.

The internet is a great tool for research and entertainment, but a lousy babysitter.